8. a.[Mental element for Element 5] [Conduct of destroying or appropriating:] The perpetrator meant to engage in the destruction or appropriation of certain property.

P.51. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document or a deed.

P.51.1. Evidence of setting fire to targeted houses and stables.

P.51.2. Evidence of setting fire for the purpose of creating terror.

P.51.3. Evidence of the destruction of a part of a village by means of shelling.

P.51.4. Evidence of placing explosives.

P.51.5. Evidence of destruction of houses caused by firing.

P.51.6. Evidence of soldiers carrying petrol canisters in order to burn property.

P.51.7. Evidence that property was pulled down.

P.51.8. Evidence that property was mutilated.

P.51.9. Evidence of ordering destruction.

P.51.10. Evidence that the property was deliberately destroyed.

P.51.11. Evidence of ordering the appropriation of property following eviction.

P.51.12. Evidence of looting.

P.51.13. Evidence that military forces carried away property belonging to the civilians.

P.51.14. Evidence of a forced transfer of property.

P.51.15. Evidence of compelling the supply of horses and vehicles.

P.51.16. Evidence of taking possession of means of production.

P.51.17. Evidence of seizure of property.

P.51.18. Evidence of removal of machinery.

P.51.19. Evidence of stealing from detainees or prisoners of war.

P.51.20. Evidence of stealing from civilians.

P.52. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.

P.52.1. Evidence of a policy of reprisal.

P.52.2. Evidence of an organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.

P.52.3. Evidence of widespread and systematic plunders carried out on a discriminatory basis.

8.a. [Mental element for Element 5] [Conduct of destroying or appropriating:] The perpetrator meant to engage in the destruction or appropriation of certain property.

P.51. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document or a deed.

P.51.1. Evidence of setting fire to targeted houses and stables.

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 586:

"586. The deliberate destruction of the houses in Sovici started on 18 April 1993 and continued until 23 April.¹⁴⁴⁸ In contrast to the shelling, the BH Muslim houses were now specifically targeted.¹⁴⁴⁹ Defence witness NN confirmed that BH Muslim houses were torched but denied that all houses were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁰ A Report from the ECMM recounts that "during the fighting the HVO have systematically burn [sic] Muslim houses".¹⁴⁵¹ On 20 April 1993, the HVO was firing at Doljani.¹⁴⁵² The village was on fire and houses were burning.¹⁴⁵³ International observers visiting Doljani after the conflict reported that half of Doljani were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁴ The hamlet of Kraj was destroyed by shelling.¹⁴⁵⁵"

"¹⁴⁴⁸ - Witness W, T 3180-3181; witness C testified that the houses were being set on fire on approximately 21 or 22 April 1993, witness C, T 862; witness X, T 3327; witness JJ, T 5004; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁴⁹ - Witness W testified "Can you tell the Chamber, please, what was the condition of the houses in Sovici when you passed through the village at that time? A. But I was passing by Croat houses all the time. Q. Well, what was the condition of those houses? A. Well, naturally like today. Nobody ever touched them, not a bullet nor anything else" witness W, T 3179-3181.
¹⁴⁵⁰ - Defence witness NN, T 12900, 12994.
¹⁴⁵¹ - Exhibit PP 344.
¹⁴⁵² - Exhibit PP 928, pp 74, 75,77.
¹⁴⁵³ - Witness RR, T 6441-6459, while being taken from Orlovac to Krcine, saw the village on fire.
¹⁴⁵⁴ - Witness JJ, T 5008; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁵⁵ - Witness C, T 857."

Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. It-95-14-T3, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, paras. 418, 424:

"418. […] Prosecution exhibit P117 also showed that nearly all the Muslim houses had been torched, whereas all the Croat houses had been spared ⁸⁶² . […]The witness Nura Pezer stated, on this point, that the day before the attack, she had seen a Croat from the village, named Ivica Vidovic, who, in the presence of another man, was pointing out the Croat houses and the Muslim houses ⁸⁶⁵ . […] . According to the ECMM observer Morsink, practically all the Muslim houses in the villages of Ahmici, Nadioci , Pirici, Sivrino Selo, Gacice, Gomionica, Gromiljak and Rotilj had been burned ⁸⁶⁷ . He stated that the houses had all been set alight with petrol and oil ⁸⁶⁸ . Likewise, according to the witness Watters, the Muslim houses had been systematically burned in Nadioci, Ahmici and ?antici ⁸⁶⁹ . The witness Baggesen, ECMM observer, reported that "it was a whole area that was burning" ⁸⁷⁰ . The report of the Joint Busovaca Commission, dated 21 April, showed that the ICRC had made enquiries that afternoon in Ahmici and noted that all the Muslims situated in Ahmici-west had left and that 90% of the houses together with the area's mosque, had been destroyed ⁸⁷¹ […].

"⁸⁶² - Witnesses Abdullah Ahmic, PT p. 3768; M, PT p. 4410; Elvir Ahmic, PT p. 3255-3256.

⁸⁶⁵ Witness Nura Pezer, PT pp. 3883-3884.

⁸⁶⁷ Witness Morsink, PT pp. 9900-9901.

⁸⁶⁸ Witness Morsink, PT pp. 9901-9902.

⁸⁶⁹ Witness Watters, PT pp. 3602-3605.

⁸⁷⁰ Witness Baggesen, PT of 22 August 1997 p. 1928.

⁸⁷¹ This information appears also in the report of the ECMM whose team accompanied the ICRC team. P242, "Report on inter-ethnic violence in Vitez, Busovaca and Zenica in April 1993", Annex N to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993. Events reported by ECMM and UN, 13-30 April 1993, Annex R to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993, p. R-7."

"424. The soldiers also set fire to the stables and slaughtered the livestock ⁸⁸³ as the accused noted himself when he visited the site on 27 April ⁸⁸⁴."

"⁸⁸³ Witness Zec, PT pp. 4288-4289; M, PT pp. 4405-4407; Pjanic, PT pp. 4435-4436; Elvir Ahmic, PT p. 3253.

⁸⁸⁴ Witness Blaškic, PT pp. 19036-19037."

P.51.2. Evidence of setting fire for the purpose of creating terror.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 600, 608:

"600. […] After the shelling, the Bosnian Serb forces entered the towns and villages, looting and setting on fire apartments, houses and business premises belonging to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. The Trial Chamber finds that the purpose of such attacks was to create terror, destroy these properties, cities, towns and villages and prompt non-Serbs to abandon their houses, viallges or towns and leave permanently."

"608.The Trial Chamber finds that the town of Bosanka Krupa was shelled by Bosnian Serb forces on 22 April 1992. Houses predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Muslims were set on fire and destroyed.¹⁵³⁹"

"¹⁵³⁹. BT-56, T. 17496 (private session ); Jadranko Saran, T. 17289."

P.51.3. Evidence of the destruction of a part of a village by means of shelling.

A. Legal source/ authority:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 614, 626:

"614. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that houses and shops belonging to Bosnian Muslims in the town of Celinac were shelled and set on fire by Bosnian Serb forces.¹⁵⁵⁶ Bosnian Muslim homes were also broken into and appliances and other valuables were taken away.¹⁵⁵⁷"

"¹⁵⁵⁶. Mehmet Talic, T. 24164; BT-90, T. 17072 (closed session); Radosava Dzombic, T. 23446, 23449; See, e.g . ex. P1991, "Morning news from Radio Banja Luka on 11 June 1992", concerning four bomb attacks being carried out against private shops in Celinac. The town of Celinac was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004.

¹⁵⁵⁷. BT-90, T. 17101-17102 (closed session)."

"626. […] Following the expiration of the ultimatum, the Bosnian Muslim village of Hambarine was shelled by Bosnian Serb forces for the entire day.¹⁵⁹⁵ Houses were targeted indiscriminately. Tanks passed through the village and shelled the houses causing civilian casualties. Houses were looted and set on fire.¹⁵⁹⁶"

"¹⁵⁹⁵. Hambarine was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004 .

¹⁵⁹⁶. Muharem Murselovic, T. 12589 -12590, 2700-2701; Ivo Atlija, T. 5556; BT-33, T. 12667 (closed session); Elvedin Nasic, T. 12720; BT-35, ex. P563, T. 6808-6810 (under seal); BT-33, T. 4032-4033 (closed session)."

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 586:

"586. […] The hamlet of Kraj was destroyed by shelling.^1455"

"¹⁴⁵⁵ - Witness C, T 857."

P.51.4. Evidence of placing explosives.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 624:

"624.[…] Many houses were destroyed during the night with explosives. The day following such destruction the rubble would be collected.¹⁵⁹⁰ A group of men marked the non-Serb houses that had to be destroyed. One of the members of the group claimed to act pursuant to orders of the Crisis Staff.¹⁵⁹¹"

"¹⁵⁹⁰. Nusret Sivac, T. 6624.

¹⁵⁹¹. Nusret Sivac, T. 6693-6694, 6755."

P.51.5. Evidence of destruction of houses caused by firing.

A. Legal sourceauthority:

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 586:

"586. […]The deliberate destruction of the houses in Sovici started on 18 April 1993 and continued until 23 April.¹⁴⁴⁸ In contrast to the shelling, the BH Muslim houses were now specifically targeted.¹⁴⁴⁹ Defence witness NN confirmed that BH Muslim houses were torched but denied that all houses were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁰ A Report from the ECMM recounts that "during the fighting the HVO have systematically burn [sic] Muslim houses".¹⁴⁵¹ On 20 April 1993, the HVO was firing at Doljani.¹⁴⁵² The village was on fire and houses were burning.¹⁴⁵³ International observers visiting Doljani after the conflict reported that half of Doljani were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁴ The hamlet of Kraj was destroyed by shelling.^1455"

"¹⁴⁴⁸ - Witness W, T 3180-3181; witness C testified that the houses were being set on fire on approximately 21 or 22 April 1993, witness C, T 862; witness X, T 3327; witness JJ, T 5004; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁴⁹ - Witness W testified "Can you tell the Chamber, please, what was the condition of the houses in Sovici when you passed through the village at that time? A. But I was passing by Croat houses all the time. Q. Well, what was the condition of those houses? A. Well, naturally like today. Nobody ever touched them, not a bullet nor anything else" witness W, T 3179-3181.
¹⁴⁵⁰ - Defence witness NN, T 12900, 12994.
¹⁴⁵¹ - Exhibit PP 344.
¹⁴⁵² - Exhibit PP 928, pp 74, 75,77.
¹⁴⁵³ - Witness RR, T 6441-6459, while being taken from Orlovac to Krcine, saw the village on fire.
¹⁴⁵⁴ - Witness JJ, T 5008; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁵⁵ - Witness C, T 857."

P.51.6. Evidence of soldiers carrying petrol canisters in order to burn property.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, para 485:

"485. Based on the same evidence discussed in the section on unlawful attack on civilian objects, the Appeals Chamber is of the view that a reasonable trier of fact could have found that damage to only Muslim houses was of such nature that it could not have been caused by the fighting and was thus not justified by military necessity and that the fact that soldiers were carrying around petrol canisters shows that it was deliberate. The Appeals Chamber upholds the Trial Chamber’s finding that wanton destruction, Count 38 (Kordic) was established."

P.51.7. Evidence that property was pulled down.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2005), p. 83:

"The following conduct may, inter alia, constitute destruction: to set fire to property, to destroy, pull down, mutilate […]."

P.51.8. Evidence that property was mutilated.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Knut Dörmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2005), p. 83:

"The following conduct may, inter alia, constitute destruction: to set fire to property, to destroy, pull down, mutilate […]."

P.51.9. Evidence of ordering destruction.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 596:

"596. The Chamber is satisfied that Mladen Naletilic ordered the destruction of the houses in Doljani and that he is responsible under Article 7(1) of the Statute. The Chamber is further satisfied that the destruction was carried out by KB soldiers under the command of Mladen Naletilic. Mladen Naletilic knew about the destruction, since he himself had ordered it; he did not prevent it and, therefore, he is also responsible under Article 7(3) of the Statute."

P.51.10. Evidence that the property was deliberately destroyed.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 586:

"586. The deliberate destruction of the houses in Sovici started on 18 April 1993 and continued until 23 April.¹⁴⁴⁸ In contrast to the shelling, the BH Muslim houses were now specifically targeted.¹⁴⁴⁹ Defence witness NN confirmed that BH Muslim houses were torched but denied that all houses were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁰ A Report from the ECMM recounts that "during the fighting the HVO have systematically burn [sic] Muslim houses".¹⁴⁵¹ On 20 April 1993, the HVO was firing at Doljani.¹⁴⁵² The village was on fire and houses were burning.¹⁴⁵³ International observers visiting Doljani after the conflict reported that half of Doljani were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁴ The hamlet of Kraj was destroyed by shelling.^1455"

"¹⁴⁴⁸ - Witness W, T 3180-3181; witness C testified that the houses were being set on fire on approximately 21 or 22 April 1993, witness C, T 862; witness X, T 3327; witness JJ, T 5004; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁴⁹ - Witness W testified "Can you tell the Chamber, please, what was the condition of the houses in Sovici when you passed through the village at that time? A. But I was passing by Croat houses all the time. Q. Well, what was the condition of those houses? A. Well, naturally like today. Nobody ever touched them, not a bullet nor anything else" witness W, T 3179-3181.
¹⁴⁵⁰ - Defence witness NN, T 12900, 12994.
¹⁴⁵¹ - Exhibit PP 344.
¹⁴⁵² - Exhibit PP 928, pp 74, 75,77.
¹⁴⁵³ - Witness RR, T 6441-6459, while being taken from Orlovac to Krcine, saw the village on fire.
¹⁴⁵⁴ - Witness JJ, T 5008; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁵⁵ - Witness C, T 857."

P.51.11. Evidence of ordering the appropriation of property following eviction.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, paras. 619 – 622, 627, 630:

"619. Witness U (a BH Muslim) testified that, on 9 May 1993, HVO units not engaged in combat were involved in evicting people and taking property; ten HVO soldiers entered his apartment and, while allegedly looking for weapons, took away some gold jewellery, a computer and other valuables.¹⁵²⁰ On that same day, seven armed men evicted Witness WW, her family and all BH Muslims living in the same building from their apartments in the DUM area;¹⁵²¹ on that occasion, Vinko Martinovic ordered a soldier to drive away a car belonging to one of the neighbours of Witness WW.¹⁵²² "

"¹⁵²⁰. Witness U, T 2927-2928.

¹⁵²². Witness WW, T 7014-7021. When witness WW returned to her apartment around mid-June, she found it emptied of valuables, witness WW, T 7032. These testimonies are corroborated by witnesses participating in the attack on Mostar. Witness Falk Simang, a mercenary fighting in the KB, admitted that after the attack on Mostar KB soldiers drove BH Muslims out of their homes and took away all valuables they could carry, witness Falk Simang, T 3830. Witness Q, a Danish mercenary fighting with the Vinko [krobo ATG, described an instance when soldiers from his unit met at Mladen Naletilic headquarters and went to loot valuables in Muslim houses using civilian cars, witness Q, T 2375."

"620. Two reports by the Military Police in Mostar recount that, on 13 June 1993, Vinko Martinovic with 40 armed soldiers was expelling BH Muslims from their apartments in the DUM area on Mladen Naletilic’s orders. During these expulsions, apartments were robbed; the looting did not stop even after the police had inquired into the situation.¹⁵²³ Witness GG was dispossessed of his car and other belongings by six HVO soldiers between the end of May and middle-June 1993 in the DUM area.¹⁵²⁴ Exhibits PP 456.4 and PP 458.1 show protests from the ABiH 4th Corps Commander Arif Pacalic for large evictions of civilians from the DUM area on 13 and 14 June 1993; the first of these documents also reports robbery from ousted people.¹⁵²⁵ Witness P testified that in the days before 14 June 1993 violent evictions of BH Muslim residents in Mostar involved robbery of private property.¹⁵²⁶ A memorandum by an international observer states that evictions of BH Muslims on 12 and 13 June 1993 took place in upper middle-class neighbourhoods where the most desirable properties were to be found. In particular, on 13 June 1993 around 5 p.m., thirty soldiers evicted BH Muslims from their apartments, and proceeded to take away the name-plates on the doors.¹⁵²⁷ An ECMM report of 14 June 1993 also corroborates these findings, describing expulsions and dispossession of apartments in the DUM and Vatikana areas of Mostar.¹⁵²⁸"

"621. Between the end of July and 17 September 1993, Witness OO was repeatedly forced by the Vinko [krobo ATG, under the overall authority of Vinko Martinovic, to carry looted household appliances in areas of Mostar far away from the combat zones of the Bulevar.¹⁵²⁹ Witness F testified that in the period between July 1993 and March 1994 he was once forced to loot apartments in an area under the responsibility of Vinko Martinovic, loading the booty on trucks that soldiers would drive away. Vinko Martinovic’s soldiers were there and he recognised Zubac, a subordinate of Martinovic, acting as commander.¹⁵³⁰ According to witness II, Vinko Martinovic was never present during the plunder and it was his subordinates, who chose the prisoners.¹⁵³¹

622. Witness Sulejman Had`isalihovic, after being captured by the HVO on 25 June 1993,¹⁵³² was forced by HVO soldiers to loot apartments in Mostar together with other prisoners, mostly at night.¹⁵³³ This testimony is consistent with the statement of witness AC that Baja and other men were taking property away at night from BH Muslim apartments.¹⁵³⁴ Witness F was forced to loot apartments after June 1993, loading the booty on trucks that soldiers would drive away.¹⁵³⁵ Witness II was frequently ordered by soldiers from the Vinko [krobo ATG to loot abandoned apartments between the end of July and December 1993.¹⁵³⁶ Witness AB testified that he was forced to loot apartments many times from mid-August 1993 onwards;¹⁵³⁷ in one of these instances, Vinko Martinovic was present and, while not explicitly ordering the looting, did nothing to prevent or stop it.^1538"

"¹⁵²³. Exhibits PP 456.1, PP 456.2. The latter document explicitly defines the course of conduct by Vinko Martinovic as "pillage".

¹⁵²⁴. Witness GG, T 4757 (confidential).

¹⁵²⁵. Exhibits PP 456.4, PP 458.1.

¹⁵²⁶. Witness P, T 2280-2281 (confidential).

¹⁵²⁷. Exhibit PP 456.

¹⁵²⁸. Exhibit PP 456.3."

¹⁵²⁹. Witness OO, T 5943.

¹⁵³⁰. Witness F, T 1106-1108.

¹⁵³¹. Witness II, T 4962.

¹⁵³². Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, T 1222.

¹⁵³². Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, T 1222.

¹⁵³³. Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, T 1247.

¹⁵³⁴. Witness AC, T 7912.

¹⁵³⁵. Witness F, T 1106.

¹⁵³⁶. Witness II, T 4962.

¹⁵³⁷. Witness AB, T 7867. The Prosecution Final Brief, p 121, refers instead to witness ZZ.

¹⁵³⁸. Witness AB, T 7880-7881."

"627. With regard to the incidents occurring in the DUM area on 13 June 1993, it has been established that a large-scale operation of plunder, in connection with evictions, was carried out by soldiers acting under the supervision of Vinko Martinovic. Vinko Martinovic ordered the modalities of the evictions; such modalities included plunder of BH Muslim property in the neighbourhood. He organised his men during this operation and took no action even after police had inquired about the events.¹⁵⁴⁸ Vinko Martinovic is therefore responsible under Articles 3(e) and 7(1) of the Statute."

"¹⁵⁴⁸. Exhibit PP 456.1."

"630. Plunder was carried out by HVO soldiers directly¹⁵⁵⁷ or forcing prisoners to do it for them.¹⁵⁵⁸ In this respect, Mladen Naletilic was giving specific orders as to the modalities of the operations.¹⁵⁵⁹"

"¹⁵⁵⁷. Witness U, T 2927-2928; witness GG, T 4756.

¹⁵⁵⁸. Witness Sulejman Hadzisalihovic, T 1246; Witness II, T 4962; witness CC, T 4423-4426.

¹⁵⁵⁹. Exhibits PP 456.1, and PP 456.2. These exhibits are reports by two different officials at the Command of the HVO 1st Military Police Battalion in Mostar, alleging that soldiers participating in the operation were "Tuta’s men" acting on "Tuta’s orders." See also witness AC, T 7907-7911, stating that his unit, the Benko Penavic ATG under the authority of Mladen Naletilic, was often divided into groups, one of which had the task to ethnically cleanse a portion of Mostar. Specific instructions were given that plunder of Muslim property was part and parcel of these cleansing operations."

P.51.12. Evidence of looting.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 600, 608:

"600. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that in the period relevant to the Indictment, Bosnian Serb forces shelled towns and villages predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, causing extensive damage to houses and business premises. After the shelling, the Bosnian Serb forces entered the towns and villages, looting and setting on fire apartments, houses and business premises belonging to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. The Trial Chamber finds that the purpose of such attacks was to create terror, destroy these properties, cities, towns and villages and prompt non-Serbs to abandon their houses, viallges or towns and leave permanently."

"608.[…] At the end of May 1992, men wearing army uniforms with an insignia of a white eagle looted a couple of houses in the village of Arapusa.¹⁵⁴⁰"

"¹⁵⁴⁰. BT-55, T. 17548."

P.51.13. Evidence that military forces carried away property belonging to the civilians.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, paras. 559, 576:

"559. The Trial Chamber relied on the testimony of Witness TW01 (based on transcripts from the Blaskic trial), which stated that the HVO "came in trucks, on tractors, and they plundered the lower part of the village, taking away everything they could at the time"⁷⁷⁷, later being aided by civilians "who carried, on their backs and wheelbarrows, valuable things."⁷⁷⁸

"⁷⁷⁷.Blaskic,T.9270.

⁷⁷⁸. Blaskic, T. 9270"

"576. The Trial Chamber relied on Witness TW12⁸¹⁹ who testified that he: "saw cars and buses being taken away or trucks, if somebody had them. [He] saw looting and they just took all those things that they could take away right now and right there. And they were talking to each other saying, ‘Take this now and leave the rest here. We will come back later and take the other stuff.’ And they took the stuff to Brnjaci."⁸²⁰"

"819. Based on transcripts from the Blaskic trial.

820. Blaskic, T. 9532."

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 621:

"621. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that Bosnian Serb attacks upon Pudin Han, Prhovo, and Crljeni were also accompanied with the looting of valuables, including electronic devices, vehicles, furniture, money and jewelry.¹⁵⁷⁷ During the looting, the perpetrators would intentionally damage the houses by tearing drapes and breaking the windows.¹⁵⁷⁸ Bosnian Serb soldiers, Bosnian Serb civilians and the Bosnian Serb police participated in the looting.¹⁵⁷⁹ The looting of houses in the municipality of Kljuc "were not isolated acts. These were acts by obedients who plundered, and making a certain gain they distributed the booty to the leaders [...] There [wasn’t] a house from which they didn't steal something ranging from furniture [to] cars."¹⁵⁸⁰ No measures were taken to prevent the looting.¹⁵⁸¹"

"¹⁵⁷⁷. Ajiz Becic, ex. P549, 92bis statement, 02109337-02109338; Bajro Hadzic, ex. P552, 92bis statement , 00521142; Samir Dedic, T. 10440-10442; BT-26, T. 9186 (closed session).

¹⁵⁷⁸. Ajiz Becic, ex. P549, 92bis statement, 02109338.

¹⁵⁷⁹. Nisvet Ticevic, T. 10752-10754 ; See, e.g., ex. P1046, "Report of Public Security Station of Kljuc on the crimes committed in the municipality from the outbreak of the armed uprising on 27 May 1992." It provides: "There has lately been widespread looting of Muslim houses" and "Information collected through intelligence work reveals that the perpetrators were in uniform, that is, they were military persons outside the authority of the SJB. However, because of wartime conditions, military security organs seldom disclose the identity of perpetrators, and punish such acts by sending them to the first front line. Such crimes are reported to the station, which simply does not know how to deal with them."

¹⁵⁸⁰. Muhamed Filipovic, T. 9537.

¹⁵⁸¹. Nisvet Ticevic, T. 10756; ex . P660, "Report from the 1st KK Command to the Serbian Republic of BiH Army Main Staff dated 4 June 1992", signed for General Momir Talic, which provides: " The Corps Command is taking all available measures to prevent various forms of crime , especially the looting of material goods."

P.51.14. Evidence of a forced transfer of property.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 605, 613:

"605. The Trial Chamber is further satisfied that, during the period relevant to the Indictment, there were many incidents in Banja Luka of non-Serbs being forced to either sign over their property ¹⁵²⁴ or exchange their property for property in Croatia.¹⁵²⁵ An agency was set up by the authorities of Banja Luka specifically to facilitate these exchanges.¹⁵²⁶ The SDS publicly announced that non-Serb owned shops and businesses would be transferred to returning Bosnian Serb soldiers as a reward.¹⁵²⁷ Bosnian Serb families moved into apartments belonging to non-Serbs who had left Banja Luka.¹⁵²⁸ Some people applied to exchange their apartments for apartments in Zagreb or Rijeka.¹⁵²⁹ In one example, a non-Serb was forced to exchange his house for just 100 German marks.¹⁵³⁰

"¹⁵²⁴. BT-20, T. 5255 (closed session ).

¹⁵²⁵. Muharem Krzic, T. 1484-1485 .

¹⁵²⁶. Muharem Krzic, T. 1484-1485 .

¹⁵²⁷. Muharem Krzic, T. 1483; BT- 22, T. 4436.

¹⁵²⁸. BT-20, T. 5241 (closed session); ex. P763 (under seal).

¹⁵²⁹. BT-9, T. 3445 (closed session )."

"613. Non-Serbs were forced to hand over their property, either by exchanging it with Bosnian Serbs who were coming to Bosanski Petrovac or by leaving it to the SerBiH.¹⁵⁵² In fact, actual exchanges seldom took place: non-Serbs transferred their property in exchange for nothing.¹⁵⁵³ However, some families that left for Bihac acquired Bosnian Serb property in exchange.¹⁵⁵⁴ The Trial Chamber is not satisfied that documents showing the sale of property belonging to non-Serbs are reliable, as the evidence shows that such transfers were always occasioned by force.¹⁵⁵⁵"

"¹⁵⁵². Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16283 ; Midho Druzic, T. 16805-16812.; ex. P1844, "Decision of the Petrovac Municipal Assembly", dated 3 August 1992, providing that for citizens of Muslim nationality "the commission will establish who can leave the Petrovac Municipality and the condition will be for them to exchange property or give it to the state, that is, to the Serbian Municipality of Petrovac."

¹⁵⁵³. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16283 .

¹⁵⁵⁴. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16347. See , e.g., ex. P1869, "Crisis Staff minutes of 2 June 1992", which provide: "It has been decided that all Muslims and Croats, who so wish, be enabled to evacuated from the territory of Autonomous Region Krajina, but only under the condition that the Serbs outside the Serbian autonomous regions also be allowed to evacuate to the territory of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is the Autonomous Region Krajina. In this way, the organised exchange of population would be carried out, that is its evacuation from one part of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia to the other […]".

¹⁵⁵⁵. Ex. P1846, "Document containing a number of contracts concerning the transfer of movable and immovable property belonging to Muslim citizens of Petrovac to the Petrovac Municipal Assembly"; Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16283."

P.51.15. Evidence of compelling the supply of horses and vehicles.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

P Rust, UNWCC, LRTWC, vol IX, p. 70 and 74:

"It was alleged by the Prosecution that in September, 1944, a local inhabitant, Marcel Schmitt, was ordered and forced by the accused to supply horses and vehicles with which he had to carry German ammunition and that he was compelled to repair German military bicycles, motor-cycles and electrical installations. It was also alleged that several other French civilians had been subjected to the same treatment, and that the acts of requisitioning were illegally effected in that no receipts were delivered to the owners of the horses and vehicles. […] The offence for which the accused was found guilty eventually amounted to a case of "illegal" requisitioning, that of violating the requirements according to which, unless payment is made "in ready money", a receipt is to be given in respect of the objects requisitioned."

P.51.16. Evidence of taking possession of means of production.

P.51.17. Evidence of seizure of property.

P.51.18. Evidence of removal of machinery.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Flick Trial, LRTWC, UNWCC, vol. IX, p.42:

"The conclusion follows that, wherever the occupying power acts or holds itself out as owner of the public property owned by the occupied country, Article 55 [of the Hague Regulation] is violated. The same applies if the occupying power or its agents, who took possession of public buildings or factories or plants, assert ownership, remove equipment or machinery, and ship it to their own country, or make any other use of the property which is incompatible with usufruct. The only exception to the public property rule that the occupying power, or its agents, is limited by the rules of usufruct is the right to ‘take possession of’ certain types of public property under Article 53⁽¹⁾. But the exception applied only with respect t to certain named properties and ‘all moveable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations’, and thus is not applicable to such properties as means of production".

⁽¹⁾Artlce 53 (paragraph 1): "Any army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds and realisable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of armes, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all moveable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations".

Krupp Trial, UNWCC, LRTWC, Vol X, p. 73:

"From a careful study of the credible evidence we conclude there was no justification under the Hague Regulations for the seizure of the Elmag property and the removal of machinery to Germany.⁽³⁾ […] Of the taking of machines from the Als-Thim Factory, ⁽⁵⁾ the Tribunal also ruled: "We conclude from the credible evidence that the removal and detention of these machines was clear violation of Article 46 of the Hague Regulations."

"⁽³⁾See pp.87-8

⁽⁵⁾ See pp. 88-9."

P.51.19. Evidence of stealing from detainees or prisoners of war.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-T, Judgement (TC), 14 December 1999, para. 49:

"49. The factual basis attached to the guilty plea indicates that the accused stole money, watches, jewellery and other valuables from the detainees upon their arrival at Luka camp by threatening those who did not hand over all their possessions with death. The accused was sometimes accompanied The Trial Chamber holds that these elements are sufficient to confirm the guilt of the accused on the charge of plunder."

P.51.20. Evidence of stealing from civilians.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 610, 612:

"610. The villages of Blagaj Japra and Blagaj Japra were shelled in May 1992. After the shelling, military tanks carrying flags with the symbol of the SerBiH entered the villages.¹⁵⁴³ Bosnian Serb soldiers took valuables and money from the villagers of Blagaj Rijeka and Blagaj Japra.¹⁵⁴⁴ Houses in the village of Blagaj Rijeka were set on fire.¹⁵⁴⁵"

"¹⁵⁴³. BT-49, T. 14223 (closed session ); BT-86, ex. P1639, 92bis statement, 00943011 (under seal).

¹⁵⁴⁴. BT-82, T. 13978; BT-49, T. 14229, 14237 (closed session); BT-50, ex. P1641, 92bis statement, 00672858 (under seal); BT-87, ex. P1643, 92bis statement, 00942600 (under seal).

¹⁵⁴⁵. BT-86, ex. P1639, 92bis statement, 00943012 (under seal)."

"612. In June 1992, Bosnian Muslim shops and business premises in the town of Bosanski Petrovac and the surrounding area were destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces.¹⁵⁴⁹ Organised groups looted Bosnian Muslim property, including cars, money and other valuables.¹⁵⁵⁰ On occasion, when Bosnian Muslims refused to hand over their money, a family member would be killed or a child abducted. The municipal Crisis Staff ordered the arrest of the men perpetrating these acts on 26 May 1992.¹⁵⁵¹"

"¹⁵⁴⁹. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16251-16254 . See, e.g., ex. P186, "Report prepared the Service for General Administration , Social Services, Information and Professional Services in 1997", recording the total amount of destruction in Bosanski Petrovac during the war.

¹⁵⁵⁰. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16251-16254 .

¹⁵⁵¹. Jovo Radojko, T. 20111-20112 ."

Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. It-95-14-T3, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, para. 418:

"418. […] Several Croatian soldiers were also alleged to have stolen money from private individuals. One member of the Dzokeri was alleged to have seized DM 2000 and jewels belonging to Elvir Ahmic ⁸⁸⁵. Two HVO soldiers were alleged to have taken money from Haris Hrnjic’s wallet after he had surrendered ⁸⁸⁶. It was also alleged that DM 400 were taken from the body of Alija Ahmic ⁸⁸⁷. The witness Casim Ahmic⁸⁸⁸ also accused a group of five Croatian soldiers of stealing DM 300-400. The victims of these thefts were always Muslim. Finally, the witness Akhavan reported seeing HVO soldiers looting the houses that were still intact in Ahmici when he visited the village on 1 May 1993 ⁸⁸⁹.

"⁸⁸⁵ Witness Elvir Ahmic, PT p. 3263.

⁸⁸⁶ Witness Haris Hrnjic, PT p. 4010-4011.

⁸⁸⁷ Witness Abdullah Ahmic, PT p. 3759.

⁸⁸⁸ PT p. 3142.

⁸⁸⁹ Witness Akhavan, PT pp. 5286-5287."

P.52. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.

P.52.1. Evidence of a policy of reprisal.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

F Holstein and Twenty Three Others, UNWCC, LRTWC, vol. VIII, p. 22-23:

"According to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the accused took part in combined operations against members of the French resistance movement: The operations were decided upon and planned at a conference held at Dijon under the auspices of General Hederich, Feldkommandant and " Befehlshaber Nord-Ost Frankreich " (G.O.C., North-East, France), in June, 1944. Six of the accused attended in their respective commanding capacities : Irmisch, Hippe, Major, Hulf, Kruger and Verfurt. They were to provide the troops and issue instructions, and all had to take personal part in the operations at the head of their units. The conference decided that the French resistance movement in the area was to be suppressed and annihilated, and that severe measures were to be taken against them and the population " in reprisals " for their struggle against the occupying authorities or assistance given in this respect. In the light of some of the evidence, such measures were to consist in […]the burning down of three farms for every German soldier killed, and of one farm for every German soldier wounded."

P.52.2. Evidence of an organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement (TC), 16 November 1998, para. 590:

"590. In this connection, it is to be observed that the prohibition against the unjustified appropriation of public and private enemy property is general in scope, and extends both to acts of looting committed by individual soldiers for their private gain, and to the organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.. […]"

P.52.3. Evidence of widespread and systematic plunders carried out on a discriminatory basis.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 701:

"701. The Chamber has already found that plunder was committed in Mostar after the attack of 9 May 1993 and that it formed part of a widespread and systematic attack on the BH Muslim population. Mladen Naletilić was found responsibly for plunder in Mostar as a violation of the laws and customs of war with command responsibility. The plunder was carried out on a discriminatory basis as only the property of BH Muslims was targeted. Mladen Naletilic knew that his subordinates carried out the plunder with the intent to discriminate. The Chamber is satisfied that Mladen Naletilic is responsible for persecution under Article 7(3) of the Statute."